ITAT Delhi condoned a significant delay in filing appeals, ruling the cause was bona fide as the accountant’s linked email ID led to the non-receipt of assessment and penalty notices. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment and penalty, remanding the case for a fresh hearing on merits.
AO made an addition based on difference between stamp value and purchase price without referring matter to a Valuation Officer despite assessee’s objection. ITAT held this omission violated Section 56(2)(x) and principles of natural justice. It observed that assessee’s registered valuer report showing a lower market value was ignored. Consequently, addition was quashed.
The ITAT confirmed the unexplained cash deposit addition of ₹32.22 lakh after dismissing the Assessee’s casual adjournment request and hearing the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities’ finding that the Assessee’s M-Pesa conduit claim was unsubstantiated by evidence.
Hyderabad ITAT found reassessment unsustainable where 54F exemption was already examined in earlier scrutiny. As no new evidence emerged, reassessment under Section 147 was declared void.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order, emphasizing that the Assessee deserved a proper opportunity to argue their case on merits despite missing the final notices.1 The matter was sent back to the lower authority for a fresh decision, with the Assessee directed to cooperate fully.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order because it was passed against an Assessee who had already expired, which rendered the order null and void. The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after substituting the legal representative.
The ITAT Delhi set aside an addition of Rs.44.50 lakh, alleged as commission income on fund routing transactions, due to the CIT(A)’s failure to pass a speaking order. The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for a fresh, de novo assessment to verify documents and provide reasoned findings, ensuring compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities’ action of treating the ₹2.55 lakh returned income as under-reported, as the return was filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice issued before the statutory due date. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal by deleting the addition made on cash deposits.1
ITAT Delhi held that cash seized during search operations can be adjusted against self-assessment tax. The order distinguishes between advance tax and self-assessment tax, directing deletion of demand raised by CPC.
The ITAT Delhi invalidated reassessment proceedings because the Section 148 notice was issued two days prior to obtaining the mandatory statutory sanction under Section 151 from the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal held that obtaining the requisite approval is a precondition for valid reopening, and issuing the notice before approval renders the entire action void ab initio.
